Deshaun Watson suspension expected to be 6 games - NFL appealing (edit)

[Nadine]

1 hour ago, Matty Ice-Ice Baby said:

That’s great! You have every right to disagree with me! Care to explain why? Or show any evidence to what brought you to this conclusion? Because short of click bait articles (which are obviously loaded in facts) I have yet to see an ounce of evidence. Like I said if he did what he said they did, that is awful and he deserves to be made an example.

You seem to be getting hostile toward me.

 

Respectfully agree to disagree

[WHAM-Bam ThankYou Sam]

1 hour ago, Nadine said:

You seem to be getting hostile toward me.

 

Respectfully agree to disagree

No hostility here, and I’m sorry if it came off that way. I would just love to hear how you came to your conclusion. If you have some insight to this that I don’t I would love to know what it is. I hope if they can prove his guilt he never plays another down of football again and he spends the rest of his life penny-less on a street corner begging for change

[Nadine]

1 hour ago, Matty Ice-Ice Baby said:

No hostility here, and I’m sorry if it came off that way. I would just love to hear how you came to your conclusion. If you have some insight to this that I don’t I would love to know what it is. I hope if they can prove his guilt he never plays another down of football again and he spends the rest of his life penny-less on a street corner begging for change

Ah that's good.  you and I have seen the same evidence and drawn opposite conclusions.

I don't have any illusion that either of us could ever sway the other,

[smittywerb]

I’m late to the convo but:

 

I do think Watson should’ve gotten more games and a fine.  But I think this is crap by the NFL doing this.  An indefinite suspension plus the fines and appealing the decision after you got everything you wanted regarding setting up the case? Trial, etc?  If they have a problem with the result, then they also need to have a problem with the player conduct bylaws because that’s what the judge used (and past suspensions) to give her decision.  I don’t agree with using Watson as an example.  Fix the bylaws, give a fair warning to the players, and then give out the hammers when needed.  
 

also, they’re so swift with Watson and his punishment but Kraft and Snyder are getting off scot free for their issues.  

[csmopar]

15 hours ago, smittywerb said:

I’m late to the convo but:

 

I do think Watson should’ve gotten more games and a fine.  But I think this is crap by the NFL doing this.  An indefinite suspension plus the fines and appealing the decision after you got everything you wanted regarding setting up the case? Trial, etc?  If they have a problem with the result, then they also need to have a problem with the player conduct bylaws because that’s what the judge used (and past suspensions) to give her decision.  I don’t agree with using Watson as an example.  Fix the bylaws, give a fair warning to the players, and then give out the hammers when needed.  
 

also, they’re so swift with Watson and his punishment but Kraft and Snyder are getting off scot free for their issues.  

I get the “past suspensions” and precedents arguments HOWEVER!!!

 

there is one big HOWEVER, all those were from singular incidents or singular “victim” or “accuser”. Watson has so far, 22 came out first, then 8 more, so 30 DIFFERENT women all accusing him of sexual assault. Now sure, some of it may be money grabbing, doubtful all of them are. But for sake of debate, say 50% of them are exaggerating or lying, that still leaves 15 women. If the standard of punishment is 6 games(plus fines) for one woman sexually assaulted is to be applied, then Watson should quite honestly be serving  a 90 game suspension.  
 

but, considering the League only focused on 5 women’s accusations, let’s go with that number, which would mean he still should be serving a 30 game suspension.  
 

instead, he got 1.2 games each for those 5 assaults instead of the “precedent” of 6 games per. And no fines. 
 
so I disagree about the league not being classy. No I think for once, they have realized they have to finally hold these types accountable. And I was pounding the table for Watson to be a Colt… before all this came out last year. Kid has unique talent, but that doesn’t excuse sexual assault. Sorry, it doesnt

[throwing BBZ]

On 8/5/2022 at 1:13 AM, EastStreet said:

 

I think it's pretty obvious he's pretty icky regardless of legal finding. While I think some of the plaintiffs are likely chasing money, I'm sure there were several that were treated in a manner they should not have been. Perhaps the behavior was not violent, or rise to level of more serious crime like rape or physical violence, but it was inappropriate at minimum. The problem I have with it, is the plaintiffs not reporting it real time. I don't think he should lose his career over it, but he should have at minimum got a hefty fine along with half year at minimum (more had their not been precedent). It is however a little hard to stomach all the woke folks on ESPN who turn a blind eye to many other things. 

 

 IF, this professional athlete wanted therapeutic massges to keep himself healthy, he would not be going to dozens of female, independent masseuses.

 Common sense says he is a serial sex addict in search of someone to exploit.

[EastStreet]

8 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 IF, this professional athlete wanted therapeutic massges to keep himself healthy, he would not be going to dozens of female, independent masseuses.

 Common sense says he is a serial sex addict in search of someone to exploit.

He wanted a handy or whatever, plain and simple. Much like Kraft. Kraft went to parlors, Watson flew them in. 

[smittywerb]

On 8/6/2022 at 9:10 AM, csmopar said:

I get the “past suspensions” and precedents arguments HOWEVER!!!

 

there is one big HOWEVER, all those were from singular incidents or singular “victim” or “accuser”. Watson has so far, 22 came out first, then 8 more, so 30 DIFFERENT women all accusing him of sexual assault. Now sure, some of it may be money grabbing, doubtful all of them are. But for sake of debate, say 50% of them are exaggerating or lying, that still leaves 15 women. If the standard of punishment is 6 games(plus fines) for one woman sexually assaulted is to be applied, then Watson should quite honestly be serving  a 90 game suspension.  
 

but, considering the League only focused on 5 women’s accusations, let’s go with that number, which would mean he still should be serving a 30 game suspension.  
 

instead, he got 1.2 games each for those 5 assaults instead of the “precedent” of 6 games per. And no fines. 
 
so I disagree about the league not being classy. No I think for once, they have realized they have to finally hold these types accountable. And I was pounding the table for Watson to be a Colt… before all this came out last year. Kid has unique talent, but that doesn’t excuse sexual assault. Sorry, it doesnt

 

id agree with you if this same type of punishment was also coming for Snyder and Kraft, but me and you both know it’s not.  So the nfl doing this, it comes off more as hypocritical than correcting a mistake.  
 

i agree, you are ABSOLUTELY right about Watson, by why doesn’t the nfl have the same focus on their owners?  I get it, they’re his bosses, but does that exclude sexual assault and other stuff these owners have been accused of?  I mean an owner just got caught tampering, trying to illegally gain an advantage, and also the nfl admitted that he mentioned paying his own coach to lose.  What was his punishment, couple of months, 1 million dollars, and a draft pick.  But Calvin Ridley gets suspended for an entire year for gambling $1500?  Wow

[Myles]

3 hours ago, smittywerb said:

 

id agree with you if this same type of punishment was also coming for Snyder and Kraft, but me and you both know it’s not.  So the nfl doing this, it comes off more as hypocritical than correcting a mistake.  
 

i agree, you are ABSOLUTELY right about Watson, by why doesn’t the nfl have the same focus on their owners?  I get it, they’re his bosses, but does that exclude sexual assault and other stuff these owners have been accused of?  I mean an owner just got caught tampering, trying to illegally gain an advantage, and also the nfl admitted that he mentioned paying his own coach to lose.  What was his punishment, couple of months, 1 million dollars, and a draft pick.  But Calvin Ridley gets suspended for an entire year for gambling $1500?  Wow

I agree that the NFL should punish owners more but it shouldn't mean letting players off easier.  If the players choose, they could leave the NFL and play somewhere else just like we could leave our jobs if we don't like how they are run.  

[csmopar]

15 hours ago, smittywerb said:

 

id agree with you if this same type of punishment was also coming for Snyder and Kraft, but me and you both know it’s not.  So the nfl doing this, it comes off more as hypocritical than correcting a mistake.  
 

i agree, you are ABSOLUTELY right about Watson, by why doesn’t the nfl have the same focus on their owners?  I get it, they’re his bosses, but does that exclude sexual assault and other stuff these owners have been accused of?  I mean an owner just got caught tampering, trying to illegally gain an advantage, and also the nfl admitted that he mentioned paying his own coach to lose.  What was his punishment, couple of months, 1 million dollars, and a draft pick.  But Calvin Ridley gets suspended for an entire year for gambling $1500?  Wow

I definitely think that’s all part of this. Goodell just got GRILLED over this by both sides of Congress . I think that factors in here. That said, the league needs to come down much much harder on owners and teams for violating rules. Draft pick forfeiting, especially 1st rounders hurt the team but the owners generally still make money. It definitely needs to be addressed. But that doesn’t mean lightening the sentences for players either

[smittywerb]

17 hours ago, csmopar said:

I definitely think that’s all part of this. Goodell just got GRILLED over this by both sides of Congress . I think that factors in here. That said, the league needs to come down much much harder on owners and teams for violating rules. Draft pick forfeiting, especially 1st rounders hurt the team but the owners generally still make money. It definitely needs to be addressed. But that doesn’t mean lightening the sentences for players either

 

im not saying lightening the sentence for Watson, I’m saying don’t make him the example when you have other people who you’re NOT trying to make the example..  If after this they are consistent and persistent with anything else (player or owner) then fine.  But if they’re doing this just because they want their way and then something else comes up and they’re light AGAIN then this was all crap.

[smittywerb]

On 8/8/2022 at 7:01 AM, Myles said:

I agree that the NFL should punish owners more but it shouldn't mean letting players off easier.  If the players choose, they could leave the NFL and play somewhere else just like we could leave our jobs if we don't like how they are run.  

 

you think Watson is being let off easy according to what?  You’re own personal feelings?  Or the bylaws of the nfl?  Because according to a judge who the NFL hired to oversee his punishment who used previous cases, punishments, and the leagues bylaws thought that 6 games was enough (which I personally disagree).

 

once again, Watson isn’t the problem here, the nfl and it’s bylaws and inconsistency when it comes to discipline are the problems. You fix those and we wouldn’t have this discussion because we’d probably see Watson next year.  Those problems have been existing for years and now the league wants to do something because it hasn’t gotten its way.  That isn’t how things works.  By that logic, the government needs to free a lot of people sitting in jail for marijuana charges.  But we know that isn’t gonna happen right.

 

watson has done everything the nfl has asked of him during this case and they don’t think it’s enough.  Snyder didn’t even show up to court.  That’s where the real problem lies.  Like I said, I’m all for it if the nfl brings the hammer down from here on out.  But they’re not.

 

 

[csmopar]

28 minutes ago, smittywerb said:

 

im not saying lightening the sentence for Watson, I’m saying don’t make him the example when you have other people who you’re NOT trying to make the example..  If after this they are consistent and persistent with anything else (player or owner) then fine.  But if they’re doing this just because they want their way and then something else comes up and they’re light AGAIN then this was all crap.

I agree with that. We shall have to wait and see

[landrus13]

Watson should be banned for life. That's what he deserves. He's a gross human and a sexual predator. Allowing him to play again just screams " F U to women and little girls". 

[waterdog]

On 8/7/2022 at 11:52 AM, EastStreet said:

He wanted a handy or whatever, plain and simple. Much like Kraft. Kraft went to parlors, Watson flew them in. 

Did any women make civil or criminal complaints against Kraft?

 

[Myles]

16 hours ago, landrus13 said:

Watson should be banned for life. That's what he deserves. He's a gross human and a sexual predator. Allowing him to play again just screams " F U to women and little girls". 

They let Vick play again so no lifetime bans are gonna happen.  

[Four2itus]

He is a user of people, and a user of the "system". He is rich, and that means he can get away with stuff, right in front of everyone. 

 

This behavior has been going on, since, well........the beginnings of society. 

 

We write, legislate, and adjudicate laws that try to fit everyone. Unfortunately, the 5% of society use the fringes of those laws, technicalities, or financial and influential power to avoid the consequences that the 95% face. 

 

Not trying to get off course on this subject, but when our laws start to focus on the 5%, rather than the 95%, things may look a bit different. 

[Myles]

Really it get down to Watson isn't liked by the boss (Ballard).  If my boss didn't like me, I would be fired right away.  

[Gramz]

I can honestly say I have  not followed any news about him.

 

So please, excuse my ignorance here, but has he been convicted of anything?

[waterdog]

5 hours ago, Gramz said:

I can honestly say I have  not followed any news about him.

 

So please, excuse my ignorance here, but has he been convicted of anything?

For me, yes, he's guilty of lying to a (former) US Federal Judge.

But he did tell the truth to all of us, when asked why he had booked encounters with hundreds of women: Deshaun's answer was, "Social media are very tempting". Deshaun should have expounded upon that truth, by explaining to the Judge exactly how he behaved in those encounters.

[NewColtsFan]

17 hours ago, Myles said:

Really it get down to Watson isn't liked by the boss (Ballard).  If my boss didn't like me, I would be fired right away.  

I don’t think you meant Ballard. 

[GoColts8818]

7 hours ago, Gramz said:

I can honestly say I have  not followed any news about him.

 

So please, excuse my ignorance here, but has he been convicted of anything?

No a grand jury decided not to indict him twice.  So from a legal standpoint there wasn’t enough evidence to charge him with anything.  However, he has settled with a large number of the women who brought civil suits against him.  Also, while there might not have been enough evidence to charge him with an official crime there is enough evidence in the court of public opinion to convict him which is why the NFL wants to drop the hammer.  It’s one of those things where maybe they can’t prove it legally he did it but everyone knows he did it thus they view him like he did it.

[GoColts8818]

On 8/10/2022 at 1:41 AM, waterdog said:

Did any women make civil or criminal complaints against Kraft?

 

Not to mention one persons poor behavior doesn’t excuse another’s.  If people want to talk about the NFL being inconsistent and shying away from punishing owners that’s fine but it’s not an excuse to let Watson off the hook.

[Myles]

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I don’t think you meant Ballard. 

You are right.   Goodell is who I meant.   

[smittywerb]

13 hours ago, Gramz said:

I can honestly say I have  not followed any news about him.

 

So please, excuse my ignorance here, but has he been convicted of anything?

In simple terms:

 

did he do bad things, yes.  Was it criminal? No, according to 2 grand juries.  Pretty much he’s a nasty freaky dude who needs counseling and needs to go to “how to pick up women” class.

[smittywerb]

5 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

Not to mention one persons poor behavior doesn’t excuse another’s.  If people want to talk about the NFL being inconsistent and shying away from punishing owners that’s fine but it’s not an excuse to let Watson off the hook.

this is pretty much my stance.  I thought Watson would get a year honestly but I understand why he didn’t.  But that doesn’t mean throw the book at him while letting these owners off the hook.

 

NFL needs to revisit and revise its player and owner conduct bylaws and stay consistent with punishment on all levels.  Snyder used his cheerleaders as escorts, skipping court, and still somehow dodges the headlines.

[2006Coltsbestever]

It really boils down to this for me. No criminal charges were filed, he wasn't indicted so that makes his case strong regarding a real long suspension. Having said that the Law and NFL rules are 2 different things. Watson works for a company = the NFL, Goodell runs the ship and Watson being one of the faces of the NFL made the NFL look bad by doing some very immoral stuff. Most people that work for any company can be fired just for doing immoral things even if lawfully nothing is going to happen. A lot of women were involved here, I am assuming they were all at least 18 years older so no law was broken there either but Watson has emotionally scarred many of these women and has settled with most. 

 

My conclusion looking at everything is, 6 games and no fine just wasn't enough in Goodell's eyes or most people's eyes. I don't think it is either. I have always said (right before what that judge was going to decide) 8 games without pay and a 5 million dollar fine would be adequate for Watson but that is just me, the 5 million dollars goes to an abuse women cause. He misses half the season, it wrecks the Browns season and gives Watson 2 months to think about the mistakes he has made while his teammates are out there struggling. If Watson doesn't play in the 1st 8 games, the Browns are toast lets face it. I see either 2-6 or 3-5 in the AFC and that isn't going to cut it when you have at least 7 other teams that will win 10+ games.

 

I think had he got what I suggested above, many people would have moved on from this and accepted it. Some still wouldn't be happy but you can't please everyone. Watson's camp thinks 6 games is too long.

[Gramz]

1 hour ago, smittywerb said:

In simple terms:

 

did he do bad things, yes.  Was it criminal? No, according to 2 grand juries.  Pretty much he’s a nasty freaky dude who needs counseling and needs to go to “how to pick up women” class.

Thanks.

7 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

No a grand jury decided not to indict him twice.  So from a legal standpoint there wasn’t enough evidence to charge him with anything.  However, he has settled with a large number of the women who brought civil suits against him.  Also, while there might not have been enough evidence to charge him with an official crime there is enough evidence in the court of public opinion to convict him which is why the NFL wants to drop the hammer.  It’s one of those things where maybe they can’t prove it legally he did it but everyone knows he did it thus they view him like he did it.

Thanks.

[csmopar]

On 8/11/2022 at 6:39 AM, Myles said:

Really it get down to Watson isn't liked by the boss (Ballard).  If my boss didn't like me, I would be fired right away.  

What does Ballard have to do with Watson?

[Nadine]

17 hours ago, Gramz said:

I can honestly say I have  not followed any news about him.

 

So please, excuse my ignorance here, but has he been convicted of anything?

 No, not convicted of anything.

He behaved in a sexual manner with 25 massage therapists over the course of 12 months.

These women all told essentially the same story

 

The appointed judge chose a punishment that is typical for 'non violent' player behavior.

 

The NFL's position is that the behavior is predatory, so, a year is more appropriate

 

 

[Nadine]

More here: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/07/sports/football/deshaun-watson.html

[Jared Cisneros]

If I was Goddell here, I'd give a bit of a creative punishment. This punishes the Browns for the contract they gave him, and Watson himself. Let him play this year, but don't allow him to play in preseason or any more training camp practices with teammates to get ready for the season. Then in 2023, suspend him for the whole season. That will force the Browns to pay him $40 million guaranteed to be out for the year and destroy their salary cap.

 

You don't or can't do it this year, do it next year when he's getting all the money and it destroys their salary cap. Remember, the Browns are ready for a Watson suspension. They will just sign Garoppolo. So let Watson play this year. Then next year, Garoppolo will be somewhere else, Mayfield is still gone, Brissett is gone, Watson suspended for 2023 (in this scenario), no 1st round pick, and the team would have to pay another QB to play for them as well as a $40 million dollar dead cap money for Watson not playing.

 

It would also deter FAs from signing with the Browns. You want a PR move that will get the fans to turn on Watson in Cleveland, this is how you do it.

[Gramz]

21 minutes ago, Nadine said:

 No, not convicted of anything.

He behaved in a sexual manner with 25 massage therapists over the course of 12 months.

These women all told essentially the same story

 

The appointed judge chose a punishment that is typical for 'non violent' player behavior.

 

The NFL's position is that the behavior is predatory, so, a year is more appropriate

 

 

Thanks Nadine.  

 

I hadn't followed or read much about this. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

26 minutes ago, Nadine said:

 No, not convicted of anything.

He behaved in a sexual manner with 25 massage therapists over the course of 12 months.

These women all told essentially the same story

 

The appointed judge chose a punishment that is typical for 'non violent' player behavior.

 

The NFL's position is that the behavior is predatory, so, a year is more appropriate

 

 

I would be ok with a year but I don't think it will happen. 8 games, he gets no pay for the 8 games, and gets fined 5 million dollars to where he has to donate that money to an abused women cause is pretty reasonable as I typed above. Hey if he gets more, I won't have a problem with it because Goodell may think 8 or even 10 games isn't enough.

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 minutes ago, Gramz said:

Thanks Nadine.  

 

I hadn't followed or read much about this. 

You aren't missing much  . I have followed it unfortunately and I just want it to be over so we all can move on and talk about other teams in a positive light. 

[Jared Cisneros]

@2006Coltsbestever I edited a post above about a creative punishment for watson. Refresh the page and let me know what you think. I respect your opinion on this forum.

[2006Coltsbestever]

15 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

If I was Goddell here, I'd give a bit of a creative punishment. This punishes the Browns for the contract they gave him, and Watson himself. Let him play this year, but don't allow him to play in preseason or any more training camp practices with teammates to get ready for the season. Then in 2023, suspend him for the whole season. That will force the Browns to pay him $40 million guaranteed to be out for the year and destroy their salary cap.

 

You don't or can't do it this year, do it next year when he's getting all the money and it destroys their salary cap.

Way to think outside the box, that will probably never happen but not a bad idea.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

What does Ballard have to do with Watson?

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

If I was Goddell here, I'd give a bit of a creative punishment. This punishes the Browns for the contract they gave him, and Watson himself. Let him play this year, but don't allow him to play in preseason or any more training camp practices with teammates to get ready for the season. Then in 2023, suspend him for the whole season. That will force the Browns to pay him $40 million guaranteed to be out for the year and destroy their salary cap.

 

You don't or can't do it this year, do it next year when he's getting all the money and it destroys their salary cap. Remember, the Browns are ready for a Watson suspension. They will just sign Garoppolo. So let Watson play this year. Then next year, Garoppolo will be somewhere else, Mayfield is still gone, Brissett is gone, Watson suspended for 2023 (in this scenario), no 1st round pick, and the team would have to pay another QB to play for them as well as a $40 million dollar dead cap money for Watson not playing.

 

It would also deter FAs from signing with the Browns. You want a PR move that will get the fans to turn on Watson in Cleveland, this is how you do it.

Here’s the thing. While I like it, let’s not forget that the league reviews all contracts and has the authority to kick them back. They didn’t and haven’t to my knowledge ever excerised that right. 
 

but supposedly there’s 30 team owners extremely upset with Watsons contract. I guarantee you something will be done now. Should the Browns be punished for hedging their bets against Watson? I don’t think so. There are no current rules that say they can’t do what they did. 

[Rhodelesstraveled]

Jags starting DL is destroying the Brownies OL.  Browns lost their starting C and he was carted off.  Looks like ACL.  1st pick Walker caused Hunt fumble on next drive and Jags recovered.  We better find a LT.